MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779033652 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0545

Behavioural responses of naked mole rats to acute hypoxia and anoxia

2017· article· en· W2779033652 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron N. Ilacqua, Alexia Kirby, Matthew E. Pamenter

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)BiologyOxygenEcologyZoologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naked mole rats (NMRs) are among the most hypoxia-tolerant mammals. Other species respond to hypoxia by either escaping the hypoxic environment or drastically decreasing behavioural activity and body temperature ( T b ) to conserve energy. However, NMRs rarely leave their underground burrows, which are putatively hypoxic and thermally stable near the NMRs' preferred T b . Therefore, we asked whether NMRs are able to employ behavioural and thermoregulatory strategies in response to hypoxia despite their need to remain active and the minimal thermal scope in their burrows. We exposed NMRs to progressively deeper levels of hypoxia (from 21 to 0% O 2 ) while measuring their behaviour and T b . Behavioural activity decreased 40–60% in hypoxia and T b decreased slightly in moderate hypoxia (5–9%) and then further with deeper hypoxia (3% O 2 ). However, even at 3% O 2 NMRs remained somewhat active and warm, and continued to explore their environment. Remarkably, NMRs were active for greater than 90 s in acute anoxia and T b and metabolic rate decreased rapidly. We conclude that NMRs are adapted to remain awake and functional even at the extremes of their hypoxia-tolerance. This adaptation likely reflects variable and challenging levels of environmental hypoxia in the natural habitat of this species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207